Need a word
Bob Cunningham
What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level of the
surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it are
straight bridges.
I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
Philip Eden
Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e8thauom3j90o1k2m...@4ax.com...
Philip Eden
John Hall
>news:e8thauom3j90o1k2m...@4ax.com...
>>
>> What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level of the
>> surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it are
>> straight bridges.
>>
>> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
In Australia, I have read, there are fences that are hidden from
distant view by being built in the bottom of a wide ditch. The idea is
to keep undesirable animals out of the manorial grounds, but without
having a fence spoil the view from the garden terrace etc.
This is called a 'ha-ha'.
(If I'm not correct, perhaps one of our Aussie readers will correct
me, or laugh me off the stage).
Perhaps that could be the genesis for the word you seek.
rzed
I'd just call it "sunken," I think.
Spehro Pefhany
Sub-surface? There's talk of "burying" an elevated expressway that runs
along the waterfront here in Toronto. I think there are some sections of
freeway in Los Angeles that are as you describe, but not sure how the
locals refer to them.
Best regards,
--
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
9-11 United we Stand
Bob Cunningham
said:
>The renowned Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level of the
>> surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it are
>> straight bridges.
>> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
>Sub-surface? There's talk of "burying" an elevated expressway that runs
>along the waterfront here in Toronto. I think there are some sections of
>freeway in Los Angeles that are as you describe, but not sure how the
>locals refer to them.
There's a picture of the sort of freeway I have in mind at
http://www.scvresources.com/highways/sr_118.htm
. `
CyberCypher
news:89aiau4kap2kkbatc...@4ax.com:
[...]
>
> There's a picture of the sort of freeway I have in mind at
> http://www.scvresources.com/highways/sr_118.htm
You must be referring to the "118 through the northern San Fernando
Valley near Reseda Blvd." photo. I don't remember anyone ever giving
these deeply inlaid freeways a particular label.
However, the four picture on that page provide a wonderfully symbolic
pictorial history of Ronnie's life, from his rural beginnings, "Los
Angeles Avenue a few miles east of the junction with State 34 (Lewis
Road)", to his smoggy end, "Eastern end of 118 at I-210".
--
Franke
Richard Fontana
> >> What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level of the
> >> surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it are
> >> straight bridges.
>
> >> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
[...]
> There's a picture of the sort of freeway I have in mind at
> http://www.scvresources.com/highways/sr_118.htm
> . `
These are common in the settled regions of the Northeast, but I'm not
aware of any special name for them. Of course they are not called
"freeways" in the Northeast, as that is a West Coast dialectism.
Peter Cooper
> Valley near Reseda Blvd." photo. I don't remember anyone ever giving
> these deeply inlaid freeways a particular label.
It's just a highway with embankments.
You could say that it's an 'embanked highway.' However, this term isn't in
general use, despite being technically accurate.
Regards,
Peter Cooper
Bob Cunningham
That's not true.
Your confusion probably results from the scarcity of freeways and the
proliferation of that great abomination, the toll road, in the East. Just
as someone might drive all their life in Southern California without
happening upon a toll road, there may be people in the East who have not
happened to see one of the freeways there. But that doesn't make "toll
road" an East-coast dialectalism.
For references to freeways in New York State, see Message ID
acd2abfe.02022...@posting.google.com
. `
For a discussion of a Connecticut freeway, see Message ID
jmstafford-ya024080...@news.erols.com>#1/1
. `
For someone referring to "the only freeway I can think of in Massachusetts
that has no number of any kind", see Message ID
rnewman-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>#1/1
. `
It's possible that there are no states that have no freeways. If someone
wants to enter Google Groups fifty times with the search argument "freeway
<state name>", inserting a different state name each time, they could tell
us if any freeway-less states were found.
"Freeway" is by no means a dialectalism. It simply describes a
limited-access highway that is not a toll road. The "free" in "freeway"
-- according to some people -- stands for "no toll".
Is there an East-coast dialectalism -- used by people who don't want to
say "freeway" -- for a limited-access highway with no tolls?
By the way, does anyone have a dictionary that has "dialectism" in it? I
don't find it in any that I've looked at. I suppose it could be
justified, though, on the basis that "-ism" is a productive suffix.
"Dialectalism" is in _Webster's Third New International Dictionary_, but I
haven't found it in other dictionaries.
Nehmo Sergheyev
Bob Cunningham
Nehmo
Below grade? There really isn't a word comparable to "elevated".
I crossposted to news:misc.transport.road. Someone there will know.
--
**************************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
**************************
http://home.kc.rr.com/missouri/Susan_Talks.htm
Tony Cooper
>
> Bob Cunningham
> > What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level of
> the
> > surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it are
> > straight bridges.
> >
> > I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
>
> Nehmo
> Below grade? There really isn't a word comparable to "elevated".
In Florida, considering our water-table, it would be called
a "canal".
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
WoodyWo...@earthlink.net
said that Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
>> Bob Cunningham
>> > What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the
>> > level of the surrounding countryside, so that the streets that
>> > cross over it are straight bridges.
>> > I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
>> Nehmo
>> Below grade? There really isn't a word comparable to "elevated".
Differently elevated?
Kathy Makus
<WoodyWo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d1kiau00tbctsavrs...@4ax.com...
Elevation challenged.
Kathy Makus
Richard Maurer
What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level of the
surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it are
straight bridges.
I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
[end quote] >>
<< [Anonymous rzed]
I'd just call it "sunken," I think. >>
I see web pages with "depressed freeway" or "sunken freeway".
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WoodyWo...@earthlink.net
said:
>> Differently elevated?
>Elevation challenged.
Love it! Thanks!
CyberCypher
news:fGbq8.1974$1a.4...@twister.kc.rr.com:
>
> Bob Cunningham
>> What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the
>> level of
> the
>> surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it
>> are straight bridges.
>>
>> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is
>> it?
>
> Nehmo
> Below grade? There really isn't a word comparable to "elevated".
Then we ought to coin "delevated", no?
--
Franke
Joe Manfre
>The renowned Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level
>> of the surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over
>> it are straight bridges.
>>
>> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
>
>Sub-surface? There's talk of "burying" an elevated expressway that
>runs along the waterfront here in Toronto.
Not the Gardiner Expressway! That would ruin the nifty view of
downtown I get when I'm in the back of a cab zooming in from the
airport!
>I think there are some sections of freeway in Los Angeles that are
>as you describe, but not sure how the locals refer to them.
As Nehmo suggests, "below grade" seems to be how transportation
planners and engineers refer to such roadways (and railways, and so
on). I doubt that normal people have ever settled on a term.
JM
I get a cookie for using 'transportation' and 'railways'
Richard Fontana
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 23:42:51 -0500, Richard Fontana
> <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> said:
>
> >On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> >> >> What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level of the
> >> >> surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it are
> >> >> straight bridges.
>
> >> >> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
> >[...]
> >> There's a picture of the sort of freeway I have in mind at
> >> http://www.scvresources.com/highways/sr_118.htm
> >> . `
>
> >These are common in the settled regions of the Northeast, but I'm not
> >aware of any special name for them. Of course they are not called
> >"freeways" in the Northeast, as that is a West Coast dialectism.
>
> That's not true.
I know it's been pointed out that there are one or two other regions
that use the term "freeway", but *in general* the term is not used in
the East to describe the similar Eastern sorts of highways. The *term*
"freeway" is known, but it's used to describe places like California.
> Your confusion probably results from the scarcity of freeways and the
> proliferation of that great abomination, the toll road, in the East. Just
> as someone might drive all their life in Southern California without
> happening upon a toll road, there may be people in the East who have not
> happened to see one of the freeways there. But that doesn't make "toll
> road" an East-coast dialectalism.
There are plenty of toll-free expressways and limited-access highways
in the East, but the only people who'd call them "freeways" are people
who come from other regions of the U.S.
> For references to freeways in New York State, see Message ID
> acd2abfe.02022...@posting.google.com
> . `
>
> For a discussion of a Connecticut freeway, see Message ID
> jmstafford-ya024080...@news.erols.com>#1/1
> . `
It cannot be natives of those regions who call them "freeways". Those
must be Californians or other Western migrants. I live in Connecticut
currently, and I can report that the term "freeway" is simply not used
by people who live here to describe anything in the state (again, an
exception might be Connecticut residents who grew up in California,
etc.).
> "Freeway" is by no means a dialectalism. It simply describes a
> limited-access highway that is not a toll road. The "free" in "freeway"
> -- according to some people -- stands for "no toll".
It *is* a dialectism, because in whole regions of the US which *have*
those things they are not called "freeways" by residents native to
those regions.
> Is there an East-coast dialectalism -- used by people who don't want to
> say "freeway" -- for a limited-access highway with no tolls?
Not in the New York city region, the Connecticut region, or, I'm pretty
sure, the Massachusetts region, which covers a huge portion of the
Northeast. There is no special term. "Expressway" is used to describe
some limited access highways with no tolls for the expressway itself,
and I guess it comes pretty close to being a generic term, but it's
generally limited to areas around metropolitan areas. The most generic
term available in the New York-region dialects and (judging from past
comments by A. Dinkin) the Boston-region dialects is "highway".
"Highway" very strongly implies a limited-access or controlled access
roadway; but a "highway" could be toll-free or tollful. "The
interstate" is sometimes used to refer to the limited-access portions
of interstate highways, but most often such a thing would be referred
to by the number, or other name, of said portion of such a thing.
Similarly, limited-access toll-free, as well as toll-ful, state
highways are probably most often referred to by route number or other
name.
(Mr. Valentine of this newsgroup, an East Coast speaker, has, in the
past, disputed the assertion that "highway" refers primarily to a
limited-access roadway; I note that for completeness.)
I only bring this matter of "freeway" up because from time to time
we get Rightpondians and Californians and such assuming that the term
"freeway" is a general American sort of word, and it isn't. It is a
regionalism, generally foreign to the East Coast U.S., and efforts to
establish it as a general Americanism must be regarded as a form of
Western cultural imperialism.
Bob Cunningham
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> said:
>On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Bob Cunningham wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 23:42:51 -0500, Richard Fontana
>> <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> said:
>> >On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Bob Cunningham wrote:
>> >> >> What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level of the
>> >> >> surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it are
>> >> >> straight bridges.
>> >> >> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
>> >[...]
>> >> There's a picture of the sort of freeway I have in mind at
>> >> http://www.scvresources.com/highways/sr_118.htm
>> >> . `
>> >These are common in the settled regions of the Northeast, but I'm not
>> >aware of any special name for them. Of course they are not called
>> >"freeways" in the Northeast, as that is a West Coast dialectism.
>> That's not true.
>I know it's been pointed out that there are one or two other regions
>that use the term "freeway", but *in general* the term is not used in
>the East to describe the similar Eastern sorts of highways. The *term*
>"freeway" is known, but it's used to describe places like California.
I have to wonder if there are not several million people in the East whom
you have not conversed with.
>> Your confusion probably results from the scarcity of freeways and the
>> proliferation of that great abomination, the toll road, in the East. Just
>> as someone might drive all their life in Southern California without
>> happening upon a toll road, there may be people in the East who have not
>> happened to see one of the freeways there. But that doesn't make "toll
>> road" an East-coast dialectalism.
>There are plenty of toll-free expressways and limited-access highways
>in the East, but the only people who'd call them "freeways" are people
>who come from other regions of the U.S.
You must have been awfully busy conducting the exhausting research that
seems necessary to support that sweeping statement.
Given the abundant quantity of Google hits on "freeway" and various states
in the East, I find it impossible to accept your position that the word is
not freely used there. I also find it impossible to believe that a
significant number of the people using the word have emigrated from
California. I don't believe the emigration flow from California to the
Northeast is that great.
I don't recall hearing the word "expressway" used to describe a highway in
California, but I'm not about to declare that no one here uses it. In
fact, now that I turn to Google I find the words "California" and
"expressway" in many hits. I just haven't happened to converse with
people who use the word, just as you probably haven't happened to converse
with the many people in the East who use the word "freeway".
>> For references to freeways in New York State, see Message ID
>> acd2abfe.02022...@posting.google.com
>> . `
>> For a discussion of a Connecticut freeway, see Message ID
>> jmstafford-ya024080...@news.erols.com>#1/1
>> . `
>It cannot be natives of those regions who call them "freeways". Those
>must be Californians or other Western migrants.
Why would anyone want to move from California to the harsh climate of the
Northeastern US?
>I live in Connecticut
>currently, and I can report that the term "freeway" is simply not used
>by people who live here to describe anything in the state (again, an
>exception might be Connecticut residents who grew up in California,
>etc.).
Again you're speaking for *everyone* in Connecticut. I doubt that you've
conversed with more than a very small portion of them.
>> "Freeway" is by no means a dialectalism. It simply describes a
>> limited-access highway that is not a toll road. The "free" in "freeway"
>> -- according to some people -- stands for "no toll".
>It *is* a dialectism, because in whole regions of the US which *have*
>those things they are not called "freeways" by residents native to
>those regions.
I doubt that you are able to provide convincing statistics to support that
statement. Given a choice between accepting your sweeping assertions and
judging by the ease of finding Google references to "freeway" in the
Northeast, I choose to conclude that Google is giving me the more reliable
guidance.
Frances Kemmish
He hasn't conversed with me, but I wouldn't call any of the roads in
Connecticut a "freeway" either.
>
>>>Your confusion probably results from the scarcity of freeways and the
>>>proliferation of that great abomination, the toll road, in the East. Just
>>>as someone might drive all their life in Southern California without
>>>happening upon a toll road, there may be people in the East who have not
>>>happened to see one of the freeways there. But that doesn't make "toll
>>>road" an East-coast dialectalism.
>>>
>
>>There are plenty of toll-free expressways and limited-access highways
>>in the East, but the only people who'd call them "freeways" are people
>>who come from other regions of the U.S.
>>
>
> You must have been awfully busy conducting the exhausting research that
> seems necessary to support that sweeping statement.
>
> Given the abundant quantity of Google hits on "freeway" and various states
> in the East, I find it impossible to accept your position that the word is
> not freely used there. I also find it impossible to believe that a
> significant number of the people using the word have emigrated from
> California. I don't believe the emigration flow from California to the
> Northeast is that great.
>
My friend in Darien who moved here from California doesn't call the
roads round here freeways either.
> I don't recall hearing the word "expressway" used to describe a highway in
> California, but I'm not about to declare that no one here uses it. In
> fact, now that I turn to Google I find the words "California" and
> "expressway" in many hits. I just haven't happened to converse with
> people who use the word, just as you probably haven't happened to converse
> with the many people in the East who use the word "freeway".
>
I did a little google searching myself and found references to
freeways in Connecticut. It seems to be a term of art in the
transportation business. Most of the references I see are specialised
sites about highways.
>
>>>For references to freeways in New York State, see Message ID
>>>acd2abfe.02022...@posting.google.com
>>>. `
>>>
>
>>>For a discussion of a Connecticut freeway, see Message ID
>>>jmstafford-ya024080...@news.erols.com>#1/1
>>>. `
>>>
>
>>It cannot be natives of those regions who call them "freeways". Those
>>must be Californians or other Western migrants.
>>
>
> Why would anyone want to move from California to the harsh climate of the
> Northeastern US?
>
>
>>I live in Connecticut
>>currently, and I can report that the term "freeway" is simply not used
>>by people who live here to describe anything in the state (again, an
>>exception might be Connecticut residents who grew up in California,
>>etc.).
>>
>
> Again you're speaking for *everyone* in Connecticut. I doubt that you've
> conversed with more than a very small portion of them.
>
I daresay that I've spoken to a larger portion in my sixteen years in
Connecticut, and I can tell you that I don't hear "freeway" used to
describe roads in the state.
We call I-95 the "Turnpike", even though it doesn't have tolls on it
any longer. We call the other interstates by their numbers; we call
Route 8 "Route 8". We call the Merritt Parkway the "parkway" (not very
original, I know).
>
>>>"Freeway" is by no means a dialectalism. It simply describes a
>>>limited-access highway that is not a toll road. The "free" in "freeway"
>>>-- according to some people -- stands for "no toll".
>>>
>
>>It *is* a dialectism, because in whole regions of the US which *have*
>>those things they are not called "freeways" by residents native to
>>those regions.
>>
>
> I doubt that you are able to provide convincing statistics to support that
> statement. Given a choice between accepting your sweeping assertions and
> judging by the ease of finding Google references to "freeway" in the
> Northeast, I choose to conclude that Google is giving me the more reliable
> guidance.
>
>
You may conclude what you please, but you still won't find too many
people in Connecticut who talk about "taking the freeway", or "driving
on the freeway".
Fran
Tony Cooper
>
> I doubt that you are able to provide convincing statistics to support that
> statement. Given a choice between accepting your sweeping assertions and
> judging by the ease of finding Google references to "freeway" in the
> Northeast, I choose to conclude that Google is giving me the more reliable
> guidance.
I can only provide anecdotal evidence, but such roads in
Florida are called "interstates" or by the specific name:
"I-95". If someone asks me what "freeway" to take to go
north to to Atlanta, my immediate assumption is that the
person is from California.
The only term I remember being used in Chicago was
"expressway" or the specific name: "Dan Ryan Expressway".
I really can't remember what the ones outside of the city
were referred to as, but it was certainly not "freeway".
As a point of disclaimer, I have only personally talked with
72,567 people in Florida, so my anecdotal evidence is
suspect.
Tony Cooper
>
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > I doubt that you are able to provide convincing statistics to support that
> > statement. Given a choice between accepting your sweeping assertions and
> > judging by the ease of finding Google references to "freeway" in the
> > Northeast, I choose to conclude that Google is giving me the more reliable
> > guidance.
>
> I can only provide anecdotal evidence, but such roads in
> Florida are called "interstates" or by the specific name:
> "I-95". If someone asks me what "freeway" to take to go
> north to to Atlanta, my immediate assumption is that the
> person is from California.
>
I didn't say I-95 runs to Atlanta, but the statement above
implies it. I-95 goes north to Jacksonville and the east
coast. I-75 would be the one to Atlanta. Neither pass
through Orlando, but we access them frequently.
Tony Cooper
Elevation challenged?
Tony Cooper
>
>
> Elevation challenged.
Damn! I just sent that without reading ahead. It is one of
the first times in my life I've been thinking along the same
lines as a pastor.
Richard Fontana
[Richard Fontana:]
> >>I live in Connecticut
> >>currently, and I can report that the term "freeway" is simply not used
> >>by people who live here to describe anything in the state (again, an
> >>exception might be Connecticut residents who grew up in California,
> >>etc.).
[Bob Cunningham:]
> > Again you're speaking for *everyone* in Connecticut. I doubt that you've
> > conversed with more than a very small portion of them.
> I daresay that I've spoken to a larger portion in my sixteen years in
> Connecticut,
I'm certain that that's so.
> and I can tell you that I don't hear "freeway" used to
> describe roads in the state.
>
> We call I-95 the "Turnpike", even though it doesn't have tolls on it
> any longer.
I did not know that (about it being called "the Turnpike"),
though that makes sense; I think of "the Connecticut Turnpike" as an
older name for the relevant portion of I-95.
> We call the other interstates by their numbers; we call
> Route 8 "Route 8". We call the Merritt Parkway the "parkway" (not very
> original, I know).
I call it, and generally hear it called, "the Merritt", but I won't
assert that that's the more standard name used by Connecticut natives.
What about when it's the Wilbur Cross? I forget what and how makes one
turn into the other. One thing's for sure: no one seems to call it
"Route 15" except maybe when clarifying road directions. Meanwhile,
the Hutchinson River Parkway in New York state, which becomes the
Merritt at the Connecticut state border, is generally called "the
Hutch".
Tony Cooper
>
> > I daresay that I've spoken to a larger portion in my sixteen years in
> > Connecticut,
That could be accomplished by talking to less people, but at
a Weight Watchers convention. Not, of course, that you
would be there other than as a passing visitor.
Frances Kemmish
>>On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Frances Kemmish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I daresay that I've spoken to a larger portion in my sixteen years in
>>>Connecticut,
>>>
>
> That could be accomplished by talking to less people, but at
> a Weight Watchers convention. Not, of course, that you
> would be there other than as a passing visitor.
>
>
Would that it were so.
I suppose if I'd stuck to speaking to lager portions, rather than
eating larger portions, I wouldn't look like such a good candidate for
Weight Watchers.
I have never been to Weight Watchers, though; I have always thought of
it as the fat folks equivalent of AA - "My name is Fran, and I'm fat"
doesn't appeal to me as much of an aid to losing weight. Sarah
Ferguson seems to be doing all right out of it, though.
Fran
Richard Fontana
I've conversed with enough people in the East to make that
generalization about "freeway". The only time people in the East tend
to speak of "freeways" is when they're talking about California,
especially the Los Angeles area.
> >> Your confusion probably results from the scarcity of freeways and the
> >> proliferation of that great abomination, the toll road, in the East. Just
> >> as someone might drive all their life in Southern California without
> >> happening upon a toll road, there may be people in the East who have not
> >> happened to see one of the freeways there. But that doesn't make "toll
> >> road" an East-coast dialectalism.
>
> >There are plenty of toll-free expressways and limited-access highways
> >in the East, but the only people who'd call them "freeways" are people
> >who come from other regions of the U.S.
>
> You must have been awfully busy conducting the exhausting research that
> seems necessary to support that sweeping statement.
Here my comments are based on my competence as an Eastern United States
speaker. Maybe "regionalism" and "dialectism" are not quite accurate
enough. It's not that "freeway" doesn't exist in the vocabulary of
Eastern people. It does. But it's *only* used to refer to California.
There's an assumption that outside of California they shouldn't be
called "freeways" no matter how closely they resemble Californian
freeways, just as in the East itself the counterparts to California's
freeways are not called freeways. The chances of an Eastern U.S.
speaker using the word "freeway" in a context that does not involve
California, particularly Los Angeles, are extremely slim.
> Given the abundant quantity of Google hits on "freeway" and various states
> in the East, I find it impossible to accept your position that the word is
> not freely used there. I also find it impossible to believe that a
> significant number of the people using the word have emigrated from
> California. I don't believe the emigration flow from California to the
> Northeast is that great.
I think it's pretty substantial. There's not a lot of emigration from
California generally to the Northeast generally, true. But there seems
to me to be a lot of back-and-forth migration between the heavily
populated urbanized coastal regions of California and the
most heavily populated urbanized coastal regions of the Northeast.
The *net* migration is still from East to West, yes.
It's *possible* that "freeway" is used generically in a larger set of
regions of the US -- for example, maybe in some parts of the Midwest or
Southwest "freeway" is so used. And no doubt some people from those
regions have migrated to the Northeast.
> I don't recall hearing the word "expressway" used to describe a highway in
> California, but I'm not about to declare that no one here uses it. In
> fact, now that I turn to Google I find the words "California" and
> "expressway" in many hits. I just haven't happened to converse with
> people who use the word, just as you probably haven't happened to converse
> with the many people in the East who use the word "freeway".
> >> For references to freeways in New York State, see Message ID
> >> acd2abfe.02022...@posting.google.com
> >> . `
>
> >> For a discussion of a Connecticut freeway, see Message ID
> >> jmstafford-ya024080...@news.erols.com>#1/1
> >> . `
>
> >It cannot be natives of those regions who call them "freeways". Those
> >must be Californians or other Western migrants.
>
> Why would anyone want to move from California to the harsh climate of the
> Northeastern US?
Because climate is rarely the only consideration made by people when
they move from one place to another. Climate is important, true; it
explains to a significant extent why there's been this net migration
from the Northeast and Midwest to the so-called Sunbelt during the
Postwar Era. (Though you have to figure that any
climate-motivated migration down to Florida is due to some sort of
information failure -- oh, hi Tony!) But that Sunbelt migration
wasn't just due to climate. Postwar US government policies
deliberately encouraged economic growth in and migration to those
regions, for example.
I'll agree that the motivations of native-Californian migration to
the Northeast cannot include considerations of climate, and can only be
due to economics, or things like moving to attend a particular school.
I would guess that most significant migrations by Americans, ignoring
the special case of retirees, are motivated by job opportunities in the
region being migrated to and the absence of as-good opportunities in
the home region. Migrations by retirees are still often economically
motivated (popular places of migration tend to be those where housing
and related costs are low) though there's a folk understanding that
retiree Americans tend to develop preferences for relatively warm and
sunny climates, all else being equal.
> >I live in Connecticut
> >currently, and I can report that the term "freeway" is simply not used
> >by people who live here to describe anything in the state (again, an
> >exception might be Connecticut residents who grew up in California,
> >etc.).
>
> Again you're speaking for *everyone* in Connecticut. I doubt that you've
> conversed with more than a very small portion of them.
Nevertheless, I'm sure I would have encountered Connecticut or other
Northeastern people using the word "freeway" in a non-California
context at some point. By contrast, you needn't make any
significant effort to hear the word "freeway" used in the Los Angeles
region -- I assume you'd agree with that.
> >> "Freeway" is by no means a dialectalism. It simply describes a
> >> limited-access highway that is not a toll road. The "free" in "freeway"
> >> -- according to some people -- stands for "no toll".
>
> >It *is* a dialectism, because in whole regions of the US which *have*
> >those things they are not called "freeways" by residents native to
> >those regions.
>
> I doubt that you are able to provide convincing statistics to support that
> statement. Given a choice between accepting your sweeping assertions and
> judging by the ease of finding Google references to "freeway" in the
> Northeast, I choose to conclude that Google is giving me the more reliable
> guidance.
If Google suggests that "freeway" is used by Northeasterners who are
native to the Northeast and who are not speaking about California, then
Google can no longer be considered a useful tool for English usage
investigations.
Richard Fontana
> That could be accomplished by talking to less people,
Oy!
Spehro Pefhany
>
> Not the Gardiner Expressway! That would ruin the nifty view of
> downtown I get when I'm in the back of a cab zooming in from the
> airport!
I'm more concerned about years of traffic jams caused by construction. And
increased taxes to pay for it all. If they could build it without
causing much disruption, then that would be the next concern. It's not
like you can see much of the lake anyway with all the new buildings south
of the Gardiner. One justification is that it will beautify the
waterfront. Expressways have been a major political bone of contention in
Toronto for most of my life. They are considered by many to be the cause
of some of the ills of other large North American cities.
>>I think there are some sections of freeway in Los Angeles that are
>>as you describe, but not sure how the locals refer to them.
>
> As Nehmo suggests, "below grade" seems to be how transportation
> planners and engineers refer to such roadways (and railways, and so
> on). I doubt that normal people have ever settled on a term.
I wonder how "grade" is defined when you have a very built-up city area. I
recall looking at a section of freeway (I think it was in Los Angeles) and
not being able to figure out whether the freeway was built into a trench
or whether the rest of the stuff was built up over it. Probably the
former, but it was not obvious.
Best regards,
--
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
9-11 United we Stand
Richard Fontana
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > I doubt that you are able to provide convincing statistics to support that
> > statement. Given a choice between accepting your sweeping assertions and
> > judging by the ease of finding Google references to "freeway" in the
> > Northeast, I choose to conclude that Google is giving me the more reliable
> > guidance.
>
> I can only provide anecdotal evidence, but such roads in
> Florida are called "interstates" or by the specific name:
> "I-95". If someone asks me what "freeway" to take to go
> north to to Atlanta, my immediate assumption is that the
> person is from California.
>
> The only term I remember being used in Chicago was
> "expressway" or the specific name: "Dan Ryan Expressway".
> I really can't remember what the ones outside of the city
> were referred to as, but it was certainly not "freeway".
I don't quite feel that "expressway" is used generically by New York
city region speakers, though I can well believe it's used generically
elsewhere. A named "expressway" is a kind of "highway". "Parkway"
also doesn't seem to be truly generic. Both terms are quasi-generic,
in that they do suggest certain features that distinguish them
generically from "highways" (limited-access highways) in general:
"expressways" are inside, and basically serve, metropolitan areas, and
"parkways" don't allow trucks.
Peter Cooper
> in the East, but the only people who'd call them "freeways" are people
> who come from other regions of the U.S.
Although it often does, "freeway" does not necessarily mean a toll-free
road. Traditionally it means that landowners with land abutting the road do
not have an automatic right of way to join the road at that point. I believe
I read this in the alt.usage.english FAQ, although I can't be sure.
Regards,
Peter Cooper
Joe Manfre
>On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> That could be accomplished by talking to less people,
>
You're one of those people who never exit Emacs, right? Well, ^X^C
sometime and then try to handle a big cat, wotwot?
JM
Donna Richoux
[snip Richard Fontana on freeways]
>
> You must have been awfully busy conducting the exhausting research that
> seems necessary to support that sweeping statement.
>
> Given the abundant quantity of Google hits on "freeway" and various states
> in the East, I find it impossible to accept your position that the word is
> not freely used there. I also find it impossible to believe that a
> significant number of the people using the word have emigrated from
> California. I don't believe the emigration flow from California to the
> Northeast is that great.
>
> I don't recall hearing the word "expressway" used to describe a highway in
> California, but I'm not about to declare that no one here uses it. In
> fact, now that I turn to Google I find the words "California" and
> "expressway" in many hits. I just haven't happened to converse with
> people who use the word, just as you probably haven't happened to converse
> with the many people in the East who use the word "freeway".
A data point. The archives of the Boston Globe find only 38 uses of
"freeway" or "freeways" in the last twelve months. That's not much. I
haven't compared that to a major California newspaper...
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Bob Cunningham
[ . . . ]
>A data point. The archives of the Boston Globe find only 38 uses of
>"freeway" or "freeways" in the last twelve months. That's not much. I
>haven't compared that to a major California newspaper...
The archive search at the Los Angeles Times,
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/
, returns a maximum of fifty hits for a given search, but you can specify
the time period to be searched. When I set the period to search only one
week -- probably any week -- for "freeway OR freeways", I get the maximum
number of hits.
While fiddling with the archive, I happened upon a statement that
contained something like "Hawaii is the U.S.' most racially homogeneous
state". It took me awhile to realize that they meant "U.S.'" to be the
possessive of "U.S.", following the debatable rule that the possessive of
any word ending in "s" should be formed by adding only an apostrophe.
This is an unusual situation, and their approach to it was not good. I
would expect most people to fail to understand it immediately, so it
creates a significant distraction of the reader's attention from what is
being said. Many people would decide, after puzzling for a moment or two,
that the apostrophe was a typographical error, but then the statement
would have made no sense, so they would have gone back to puzzle some
more. That's what I did.
Their approach would have been at the bottom of my list of choices. My
first choice would probably have been to write "Hawaii is the most
racially homogeneous state in the U.S." (assuming that there was a good
reason to abbreviate "United States").
WoodyWo...@earthlink.net
<fkem...@optonline.net> said:
[...]
>I suppose if I'd stuck to speaking to lager portions, rather than
>eating larger portions, I wouldn't look like such a good candidate for
>Weight Watchers.
By all means, if you want to avoid the need for Weight Watchers, stay away
from lager portions, especially larger lager portions.
Bob Cunningham
said:
It's at
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxfreewa.html
. `
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>>> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
>
>>Sub-surface? There's talk of "burying" an elevated expressway that runs
>>along the waterfront here in Toronto. I think there are some sections of
>>freeway in Los Angeles that are as you describe, but not sure how the
>>locals refer to them.
>
>There's a picture of the sort of freeway I have in mind at
>http://www.scvresources.com/highways/sr_118.htm
There's one just at the end of our road, beyond the next house -- it takes a
dip to go under the railway line, and it is in a cutting. I can't think of a
special name for it, though I've lived next to if for nearly 20 years.
"Sunken", perhaps?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Jerry Friedman
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 23:42:51 -0500, Richard Fontana
> > <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> said:
> > >These are common in the settled regions of the Northeast, but I'm not
> > >aware of any special name for them. Of course they are not called
> > >"freeways" in the Northeast, as that is a West Coast dialectism.
> >
> > That's not true.
>
> I know it's been pointed out that there are one or two other regions
> that use the term "freeway", but *in general* the term is not used in
> the East to describe the similar Eastern sorts of highways. The *term*
> "freeway" is known, but it's used to describe places like California.
When I was growing up in Cleveland, "freeway" was the normal term.
The one toll road near Cleveland was called the turnpike. Cleveland
may not be part of the East, but it's not on the West Coast or a place
like California either.
...
> (Mr. Valentine of this newsgroup, an East Coast speaker, has, in the
> past, disputed the assertion that "highway" refers primarily to a
> limited-access roadway; I note that for completeness.)
He's correct in New Mexico. Any road that connects non-contiguous
towns (and the towns aren't very contiguous in these parts, buckaroo)
and has a speed limit above about 40 mph is a "highway". Much of the
Taos Highway is only one lane each way, it having been thought
inadvisable to widen the Rio Grande gorge. I don't hear "freeway"
much here, although (because?) there are no toll roads.
...
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Fontana
> Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.44.02040...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>...
> > (Mr. Valentine of this newsgroup, an East Coast speaker, has, in the
> > past, disputed the assertion that "highway" refers primarily to a
> > limited-access roadway; I note that for completeness.)
>
> He's correct in New Mexico.
I should clarify that my assertion that "highway" refers in the first
instance to a limited-access roadway is an assertion only about East
Coast speech (possibly only urban East Coast speech north of Laurel).
> Any road that connects non-contiguous
> towns (and the towns aren't very contiguous in these parts, buckaroo)
> and has a speed limit above about 40 mph is a "highway".
I'd call that a "road" if it's not limited-access.
Bob Cunningham
>On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 03:46:34 GMT, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>>>> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
>>>Sub-surface? There's talk of "burying" an elevated expressway that runs
>>>along the waterfront here in Toronto. I think there are some sections of
>>>freeway in Los Angeles that are as you describe, but not sure how the
>>>locals refer to them.
>>There's a picture of the sort of freeway I have in mind at
>>http://www.scvresources.com/highways/sr_118.htm
>There's one just at the end of our road, beyond the next house -- it takes a
>dip to go under the railway line, and it is in a cutting. I can't think of a
>special name for it, though I've lived next to if for nearly 20 years.
>"Sunken", perhaps?
I think you're saying that it goes into the cutting only to go under the
railway line. That sounds like what many people -- including me -- would
call an underpass.
GrapeApe
>a
>dip to go under the railway line,
So have you ever gone under there?
Spehro Pefhany
>
> I think you're saying that it goes into the cutting only to go under the
> railway line. That sounds like what many people -- including me -- would
> call an underpass.
I would. I think the technical term is a "grade separation".
I have heard the opposite, an overpass, called a "flyover" in California,
and, of course, in BrE. As if calling a pedestrian underpass a "subway"
wasn't confusing enough. I note that the jocular "Happy Overpass" has a
Richoux number of zero.
Bob Cunningham
said:
>The renowned Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I think you're saying that it goes into the cutting only to go under the
>> railway line. That sounds like what many people -- including me -- would
>> call an underpass.
>I would. I think the technical term is a "grade separation".
Logically, "grade separation" should subsume "underpass" and "overpass".
To round out the picture, since we've come this far, let me mention "grade
crossing", a crossing of a road and a railway or two railways at the same
level.
>I have heard the opposite, an overpass, called a "flyover" in California,
>and, of course, in BrE.
If I were to call an overpass a flyover, I wouldn't expect anyone that I
know to understand what I meant.
Tony Cooper
>
> I should clarify that my assertion that "highway" refers in the first
> instance to a limited-access roadway is an assertion only about East
> Coast speech (possibly only urban East Coast speech north of Laurel).
>
> > Any road that connects non-contiguous
> > towns (and the towns aren't very contiguous in these parts, buckaroo)
> > and has a speed limit above about 40 mph is a "highway".
>
> I'd call that a "road" if it's not limited-access.
"Highway" and "limited access" are not associated down
here. Highway 17/92 [1], for example, is a regular road in
places between Jacksonville and Tampa...two lanes each way
in some places, and one lane each way in others. Roads and
streets cross it, and there are stop-lights on Highway
17/92. It runs right through Orlando and many of the
Orlando suburbs, and many houses and businesses have
addresses like 404 N. Highway 17/92". This is not a lone
example of a highway not being limited access; not even an
infrequent example.
[1] In places, this highway is Highway 17, in other places
it's Highway 92, but for most of the way it is Highway 17/92
with the two routes combined.
Donna Richoux
> The renowned Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > I think you're saying that it goes into the cutting only to go under the
> > railway line. That sounds like what many people -- including me -- would
> > call an underpass.
>
> I would. I think the technical term is a "grade separation".
>
> I have heard the opposite, an overpass, called a "flyover" in California,
> and, of course, in BrE. As if calling a pedestrian underpass a "subway"
> wasn't confusing enough. I note that the jocular "Happy Overpass" has a
> Richoux number of zero.
If you mean zero Google hits, I wish you would do me a favor and please
say that. I know some people get a real kick out of teasing me on this,
but attaching my name incorrectly to a variety of ideas is really not
going to do anybody any good in the long run. (I don't think Perchprism
did Skitt a favor by attaching his name to the
never-precisely-formulated law, either.)
There's no such thing as a Richoux number. Richoux advocates comparing
*two* related values and calculating a *ratio*. In a particular manner.
Jitze called it the Richoux Comparison, and I can live with that.
Richoux may need to seek a trademark or some sort of protection.
Sadly -- Richoux
Spehro Pefhany
> If you mean zero Google hits, I wish you would do me a favor and please
> say that. I know some people get a real kick out of teasing me on this,
> but attaching my name incorrectly to a variety of ideas is really not
> going to do anybody any good in the long run. (I don't think Perchprism
> did Skitt a favor by attaching his name to the
> never-precisely-formulated law, either.)
I've been waiting for a precise formulation and thought the posting might
result in one being offered. I'm aware that it's typically a comparative
thing and that you dislike the "ratio" name.
> There's no such thing as a Richoux number. Richoux advocates comparing
> *two* related values and calculating a *ratio*. In a particular manner.
> Jitze called it the Richoux Comparison, and I can live with that.
Okay. I'm not sure that calculating the exact ratio is as useful as the
approximate ratio (as you might calculate in your head) and the values of
the two numbers of Google hits. There is often useful information in the
order of magnitude of the number of hits. Another reason to avoid the
"ratio". Similarly to the situation where atan(y/x) is calculated, where
it is often better to retain y and x separately rather than calculate the
ratio and lose information. I suppose the way the searches are related is
undefined?
> Richoux may need to seek a trademark or some sort of protection.
Not from me. There are too many cases of people being remembered for some
silly thing associated with their name rather than the body of their work.
I thought it might be fun in the case of an extremely innovative British
engineer friend to associate his name with an utterly useless circuit
configuration (which he suggested in jest). I fear this may already be
beyond my control and have some regrets about starting it.
Skitt
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
> (I don't think Perchprism
> did Skitt a favor by attaching his name to the
> never-precisely-formulated law, either.)
Well, the way I look at it, some recognition is better than no recognition
at all, undeserved as it may be.
Skitt
(Seeker of fame and fortune)
Richard Fontana
> Richard Fontana wrote:
> >
> > I should clarify that my assertion that "highway" refers in the first
> > instance to a limited-access roadway is an assertion only about East
> > Coast speech (possibly only urban East Coast speech north of Laurel).
> >
> > > Any road that connects non-contiguous
> > > towns (and the towns aren't very contiguous in these parts, buckaroo)
> > > and has a speed limit above about 40 mph is a "highway".
> >
> > I'd call that a "road" if it's not limited-access.
>
> "Highway" and "limited access" are not associated down
> here. Highway 17/92 [1], for example, is a regular road in
> places between Jacksonville and Tampa...two lanes each way
> in some places, and one lane each way in others. Roads and
> streets cross it, and there are stop-lights on Highway
> 17/92. It runs right through Orlando and many of the
> Orlando suburbs, and many houses and businesses have
> addresses like 404 N. Highway 17/92". This is not a lone
> example of a highway not being limited access; not even an
> infrequent example.
Whenever I bring this subject up people always point out that "highway"
doesn't just mean "limited-access" by giving examples of officially
numbered "state highways". But what I'm saying is that in the
New York speech region I'm familiar with (and this is apparently also
true of the Boston speech region), "highway" *when used generically*
means "limited-access road" *despite* official uses (by state
governments and the like) of "highway" to refer to particular sorts of
roads that include non-limited-access roads.
This is yet another instance of the real vs. official language problem.
Let me ask you this, Coop. Suppose you're driving on Highway 17/92
through one of those Orlando suburbs with houses fronting said road.
Could you say, in Orlando English, "I am at this moment driving on a
highway"? Now suppose that Highway 17/92 is somehow decommissioned as
a state highway; it's just like any other street in Orlando, in the
sense that it no longer has a state highway number and none of whatever
things go along with having a state highway number. But in all other
respects it *looks* just like it used to when it was Highway 17/92.
Suppose it's renamed "Cooper Road". Are you still "driving on a
highway"? Suppose it's renamed from Cooper Road to "Cooper Highway".
Same answer? Different?
Murray Arnow
Alec, I thought you retired.
Skitt
I'll give a shot at trying to make everybody happy --
Let's start with the universal AmE usage as described in MWCD10:
Main Entry: high·way
Pronunciation: 'hI-"wA
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
: a public way; especially : a main direct road
All that needs to be added is that there are regional differences and
idiosyncrasies in the application of that word, especially regarding what _a
main direct road_ might be, and whether a _main road_ ceases to be such when
passing through a village or town, or is anywhere near the New York speech
region. M'kay?
As a side note, I know whereof Coop speaks -- one can not get to Gatorland
without driving on 17/92. Strangely enough, around there the highway is
also called and labeled as the Orange Blossom Trail, or in native lingo, the
OBT (oh bee tee). So, even something called a trail can be a highway, see?
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Skitt
"Murray Arnow" <ar...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:a8de35$quh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
One can still seek ...
Robert Lieblich
>
> The renowned Joe Manfre <man...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> > Not the Gardiner Expressway! That would ruin the nifty view of
> > downtown I get when I'm in the back of a cab zooming in from the
> > airport!
>
> I'm more concerned about years of traffic jams caused by construction. And
> increased taxes to pay for it all. If they could build it without
> causing much disruption, then that would be the next concern.
Have you heard about Boston's "Big Dig"? The idea was to replace an
elevated freeway with a covered below-grade freeway (giving the
effect of a tunnel). This project is now so far behind schedule and
above budget that I wonder if the officials in charge are even
giving out estimates any more. It's had central Boston tied in
knots for about a decade now, and it ranks among the classic
boondoggles of all time.
Is this what they want to do in Toronto?
--
Bob Lieblich
Who misses the elevated freeway (and its puke green paint)
Tony Cooper
>
> Whenever I bring this subject up people always point out that "highway"
> doesn't just mean "limited-access" by giving examples of officially
> numbered "state highways".
I'm glad not to have let you down.
But what I'm saying is that in the
> New York speech region I'm familiar with
I didn't disagree with the New York regionalism. I simply
stated the situation here.
>
> Let me ask you this, Coop. Suppose you're driving on Highway 17/92
> through one of those Orlando suburbs with houses fronting said road.
> Could you say, in Orlando English, "I am at this moment driving on a
> highway"?
I could, and might. Were I to receive a call from my wife
asking where I am, I might say I was on Highway 17/92.
(Probably, though, just "17/92" since that would identify it
for her.
Now suppose that Highway 17/92 is somehow decommissioned
as
> a state highway; it's just like any other street in Orlando, in the
> sense that it no longer has a state highway number and none of whatever
> things go along with having a state highway number. But in all other
> respects it *looks* just like it used to when it was Highway 17/92.
> Suppose it's renamed "Cooper Road". Are you still "driving on a
> highway"? Suppose it's renamed from Cooper Road to "Cooper Highway".
> Same answer? Different?
A complex answer. Highway 17/92 has a second, and different
name, in many of the towns it goes through. In some places
it's Orlando Avenue (Sanford), Mills Avenue (Orlando) and
several other names in different towns. In a 15 minute
drive up or down 17/92, I would pass from Sanford, to
Longwood, to Casselberry, to Fern Park, to Maitland, to
Winter Park, and then Orlando. All on 17/92, but with
several street names. In all cases, I am driving on what it
is named, and that is a highway and an avenue and whatever
else the streets are called. Same with Highway 436 which is
Semoran Blvd.
A highway is not determined by its appearance.
Tony Cooper
>
> As a side note, I know whereof Coop speaks -- one can not get to Gatorland
> without driving on 17/92. Strangely enough, around there the highway is
> also called and labeled as the Orange Blossom Trail, or in native lingo, the
> OBT (oh bee tee). So, even something called a trail can be a highway, see?
I called the towns north of Orlando, but somewhere in
Orlando 17/92 becomes OBT. In Kissimmee it has even a
different name. It never stops being Highway 17/92.
In Jacksonville, "King's Road" and "Old King's Road" look
suspiciously like ordinary streets. I'm sure there are
similar situations even in New York. "Avenue of the
Americas", for example, looks suspiciously like a numbered
avenue.
rzed
From another viewpoint (Midwest): Federal Highway 41 runs from Copper
Harbor, Michigan to Miama, Florida. Some stretches are limited access, built
to Interstate standards; some are ordinary two-lane, two-way streets passing
through a *bunch* of little towns. Some stretches are neither fish nor
fowl -- divided, but with traffic lights and right-angle intersections. It's
tempting to say that it somehow stops being a highway as it meanders through
every little town in Illinois, and I have an inkling that this somehow
relates to the "generic" use of the term that Richard is talking about.
There's some connotation of greater freedom and faster travel on a highway
than on an ordinary street, and when the abstract route of a highway happens
to coincide with the common crawl of a street, it doesn't seem likely that
"highway" is the first term that would come to mind to describe that portion
of the road.
Nonetheless, to a traveler intent on staying on the highway (that is,
keeping to the identifiable route), there is a distinction between 41 and
Cooper Road. It's something like the distinction between High Street and Elm
Street -- in the former case, one expects traffic and commerce that caters
to the travelers on the road, while in the latter case, one expects only
nightmares.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Richoux may need to seek a trademark or some sort of protection.
Have no fear,
We'll protect you, dear.
--
Charles Riggs
R J Valentine
...
} I know it's been pointed out that there are one or two other regions
} that use the term "freeway", but *in general* the term is not used in
} the East to describe the similar Eastern sorts of highways. The *term*
} "freeway" is known, but it's used to describe places like California.
*In general* that's true enough for government work in my experience. I
don't notice that Judge Lieblich has weighed in on this thread, so I
should point out in fairness that in the Greater Laurel Area (The Fourth
Largest Metropolitan Area in America) and especially in his end of it,
there are quite a few local freeways (so named).
In agreeing with Prof. Fontana on this point, I feel duty-bound to agree a
little bit (which I like to do whenever possible) with Bob Cunningham's
possible hints that Prof. Fontana does seem to have a _slight_ tendency to
extrapolate on the basis of limited experience (though he's certainly not
the worst). More often than not, though, those extrapolations tend to be
right on the money.
...
} (Mr. Valentine of this newsgroup, an East Coast speaker, has, in the
} past, disputed the assertion that "highway" refers primarily to a
} limited-access roadway; I note that for completeness.)
In the present, for that matter. It does seem to be a trend that they're
paving over the old highways (so to say) and making a lot of them limited
access; so the younger generation, trapped in a limited-access "island",
might easily get the impression that all highways are limited access.
When I were a lad on the Island, there were plenty of highways like
Jericho Turnpike and Sunrise Highway, which were pretty much all ordinary
numbered state roads, with 25A being the only one actually known by
number. We had a few parkways (Northern State (which became Grand Central
farther in), Southern State, and the Belt Parkway), and there was of
course the Thruway (which allowed trucks). Northern State had entrance
chutes, each at about a forty-five degree angle with a stop sign at the
end of it. The first expressway I was aware of was the new Long Island
Expressway (the Big LIE), which I think was constructed with a traffic jam
already in place.
But highways have always been like intercity roads, and they still are in
places where they haven't all been made limited access. I think there's a
line in _Psycho_ about how the Bates Motel had been losing business since
they moved away the highway. (But then that's California.)
} I only bring this matter of "freeway" up because from time to time
} we get Rightpondians and Californians and such assuming that the term
} "freeway" is a general American sort of word, and it isn't. It is a
} regionalism, generally foreign to the East Coast U.S., and efforts to
} establish it as a general Americanism must be regarded as a form of
} Western cultural imperialism.
Still, it's understood (as I suspect "expressway" is on the West Coast),
and I'd be willing to settle for either if we can avoid losing the word
"highway".
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Mark Brader
> What's the word to describe a freeway that is well below the level of the
> surrounding countryside, so that the streets that cross over it are
> straight bridges.
>
> I know it's not "submerged", and it's not "depressed". What is it?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't try this at work."
m...@vex.net -- Dennis Ritchie
Richard Maurer
Still, it's understood (as I suspect "expressway" is on the West Coast),
and I'd be willing to settle for either if we can avoid losing the word
"highway". >>
Nearby where I live (San Francisco is about an hour north),
we have several Expressways. They are in character a mix
between freeways and major streets. Expressways will have
a mixture of ramped intersections and normal intersections
with a signal; they don't have driveways meeting them.
I don't remember seeing the name in Southern California,
but it has been a while. Although Expressway is the official
category, I think they are often named something else
such as Boulevard.
As far as an East Coast "expressway" being understood
by someone on the West Coast, I think that is right
to a degree. In my case, I think it was known to be a
member of the {freeway, expressway, turnpike, thoroughfare,
toll road} collection without being clear on the distinctions,
until I met one. Perhaps in the meantime the differences
have been explored on "Seinfeld" or "Friends" and
everybody of a certain age now knows.
As for how I think of a highway, other than as a
general road term, I think of it as the
most advanced road, sturdy and high speed capable,
connecting towns and cities up until say 1950,
when freeways started to take on that status.
So until then the meaning would have matched
what Richard Fontana reports for the Northeast.
We still have highways that match the old standard.
Some were paralleled with new freeways,
some were 2 lane mountain highways without much traffic.
They continued to be known as highways,
the new roads were freeways.
In general, the time continuation of that 1950s highway
still goes through business districts. In less dense
areas it has the occasional cross-street or driveway.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Away from the business districts, they are built for 55 mph.
Richard Maurer
There's no such thing as a Richoux number. Richoux advocates comparing
*two* related values and calculating a *ratio*. In a particular manner.
Jitze called it the Richoux Comparison, and I can live with that. >>
Donna's Ratio?
Richard Fontana
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 07:42:03 -0500 Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> ...
> } I know it's been pointed out that there are one or two other regions
> } that use the term "freeway", but *in general* the term is not used in
> } the East to describe the similar Eastern sorts of highways. The *term*
> } "freeway" is known, but it's used to describe places like California.
>
> *In general* that's true enough for government work in my experience. I
> don't notice that Judge Lieblich has weighed in on this thread, so I
> should point out in fairness that in the Greater Laurel Area (The Fourth
> Largest Metropolitan Area in America) and especially in his end of it,
> there are quite a few local freeways (so named).
This no doubt is a reflection of the varied geographic origins of
Laurel-region residents. (Why would a Californian move to the Laurel
region? The power, and the freedom!)
> } (Mr. Valentine of this newsgroup, an East Coast speaker, has, in the
> } past, disputed the assertion that "highway" refers primarily to a
> } limited-access roadway; I note that for completeness.)
>
> In the present, for that matter. It does seem to be a trend that they're
> paving over the old highways (so to say) and making a lot of them limited
> access; so the younger generation, trapped in a limited-access "island",
> might easily get the impression that all highways are limited access.
I don't think that's it. But I remember Aaron J. Dinkin shared my
linguistic view of "highway", and I believe he's a
Bostonian-from-Boston Bostonian. So it might have something to do with
growing up in a relatively large city. New York basically doesn't
have, within its borders, non-limited-access "state highways" that are
thought of as "state highways" connecting different towns (perhaps
Queens residents have a different intuition though) -- they're just
streets or roads. And there are lots of limited-access highways, so
these become the "highways".
Checking a map of Brooklyn, I see that Flatbush Avenue doubles as state
highway (route?) 27. But you can be sure that no one (a) calls
Flatbush Avenue "27", and (b) thinks of Flatbush Avenue as a "highway",
except for maybe that part once you get past Kings Plaza and Marine
Park and head for the funny-looking Marine Parkway Bridge (featured so
prominently in the classic coming-of-age film _The Flamingo Kid_
starring Matt Dillon, dir. by Gary Marshall (1984)), which brings you
to the Rockaway Peninsula.
Richard Fontana
Well, one of Brooklyn (that is, Kings County)'s oldest thoroughfares is
Kings Highway, and that is about as far from a highway as can be
imagined; it's just a narrow, curved commercial street. It used to be
a post road way back when, but it was never made part of Historic Route
1 or any other federal "highway", to the best of my knowledge.
Richard Fontana
> As for how I think of a highway, other than as a
> general road term, I think of it as the
> most advanced road, sturdy and high speed capable,
> connecting towns and cities up until say 1950,
> when freeways started to take on that status.
> So until then the meaning would have matched
> what Richard Fontana reports for the Northeast.
I should make clear that as far as the restricted meaning of "highway"
goes I'm only speaking of New York city and Possibly Boston usage.
For the whole Northeast I stand by my statement that "freeway" is a
foreignism. I live in Connecticut now; I don't know whether the Locals
speak of the non-limited-access state highways generically as
"highways" or what. Certainly that state, like the whole of the
Northeast, features major roads connecting towns and cities.
Randy Orrison
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
| It's *possible* that "freeway" is used generically in a larger set of
| regions of the US -- for example, maybe in some parts of the Midwest or
| Southwest "freeway" is so used. And no doubt some people from those
| regions have migrated to the Northeast.
Data point: born and raised in Minnesota; father from Minnesota,
mother from England. Freeway to me is a name for a class of roads
which only includes Interstates. I would consider I94 and I35 to be
freeways, but would not use the term for other limited access divided
highways. If I said I was going north on the freeway, I would only be
referring to 35E or 35W. (Of course, I'd be much more likely to just
say the name of the road.)
But that's just me.
--
-randyo
Randy Orrison -- Orrison Consulting Ltd. -- rorr...@hotmail.com
The reply address is valid, but a spam trap. Use bigfoot
instead of hotmail if you want a response.
Donna Richoux
> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> >
> > The renowned Joe Manfre <man...@world.std.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not the Gardiner Expressway! That would ruin the nifty view of
> > > downtown I get when I'm in the back of a cab zooming in from the
> > > airport!
> >
> > I'm more concerned about years of traffic jams caused by construction. And
> > increased taxes to pay for it all. If they could build it without
> > causing much disruption, then that would be the next concern.
>
> Have you heard about Boston's "Big Dig"? The idea was to replace an
> elevated freeway with a covered below-grade freeway (giving the
> effect of a tunnel).
I was going to mention this in connection to the original question. When
I left Boston in 92, the Big Dig was still in the planning stages, and
the phrase that was always used to describe the main part was "depress"
-- "depressed Central Artery." This section of road was/is elevated and
is going to wind up below grade. (People were arguing whether the newly
claimed surface level would become a park or more office space.)
>This project is now so far behind schedule and
> above budget that I wonder if the officials in charge are even
> giving out estimates any more. It's had central Boston tied in
> knots for about a decade now, and it ranks among the classic
> boondoggles of all time.
I see bits and pieces of the changes each time I visit Boston. The
elevated Central Artery was still there last summer, though, at least
near the old airport tunnels. But the bridges have improved. (Except the
one they couldn't open because apparently the concrete wasn't poured
right...)
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
nancy g
> } (Mr. Valentine of this newsgroup, an East Coast speaker, has, in the
> } past, disputed the assertion that "highway" refers primarily to a
> } limited-access roadway; I note that for completeness.)
>
> In the present, for that matter. It does seem to be a trend that they're
> paving over the old highways (so to say) and making a lot of them limited
> access; so the younger generation, trapped in a limited-access "island",
> might easily get the impression that all highways are limited access.
(snip)
> But highways have always been like intercity roads, and they still are in
> places where they haven't all been made limited access.
I'm not sure how embarrassed I should be about admitting this, but I
really don't know what is meant by a "limited-access" road. I've
never used the term, and it doesn't seem to come up in casual
conversation with friends. Could someone explain it to me, please?
How does it differ from just a "highway"?
Data point: Born and brought up in New England (starting out in the
Greater Boston area, gradually moving north and west about 35 miles),
and to me, any road that has exits and entrances is a "highway". The
"Expressway", to me, refers to one very specific road in Boston whose
proper name is the Southeast Expressway. Nobody I know would use
"expressway" as a generic term for any type of road. I occasionally
hear someone from an older generation refer to highways that charge a
toll as "toll roads". If someone calls a road an "interstate", it's a
sign that they're Not From Around Here. And I don't think anyone I
know calls any roads "freeways".
nancy g.
who prefers the byways
Joe Manfre
>Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>} (Mr. Valentine of this newsgroup, an East Coast speaker, has, in
>} the past, disputed the assertion that "highway" refers primarily to
>} a limited-access roadway; I note that for completeness.)
>
>In the present, for that matter. It does seem to be a trend that
>they're paving over the old highways (so to say) and making a lot of
>them limited access; so the younger generation, trapped in a
>limited-access "island", might easily get the impression that all
>highways are limited access.
Whenever this comes up I always think of the Pulaski Highway east of
Baltimore -- part of U.S. Route 40. R.J., you could shirley agree
with me that while this is not a limited-access road, it's kind of
isolated and mostly cut out for high-speed travel and one can
certainly see calling it a "highway". Odder is the part of Route 40
within the Baltimore city limits that is also called "Pulaski
Highway"; still, while much more urban in character, this is a
multi-lane road that, at least in some places, has a degree of
separation from nearby neighborhood streets such that not every street
is important enough to intersect with Pulaski Highway.
I could see how someone who lived most of his life somewhere in the
four boroughs served by the MTA New York City Subway could be more
resistant to the idea of a non-limited-access "highway" than someone
from the postwar 'burbs, which are more likely to display the concept
of the self-contained residential development with only a handful of
outlet streets connecting it to the rest of the world, and which
therefore make it easier for the local resident to conceptually
separate a small neighborhood street from a collector artery from a
long, high-speed road with relatively few intersections, such as the
aforementioned east-of-Baltimore U.S. 40 or, say, the relatively
isolated part of Route 1 north of Laurel Proper and south of the
Greater Glen Burnie Metropolitan Area.
JM
Donna Richoux
Yes, your system of nomenclature is different. In much of the country, a
"highway" can be any major road that carries through, fast traffic. They
can be two lane (one lane each way) or four lane or more. They can be
controlled-access (limited access, having "entrances" and "exits") or
not. "Not controlled-access" means that little side streets and
driveways can open right onto the road. They can have traffic lights or
not. They can be maintained by the US government (Interstates and US
numbered routes) or by the state or the county.
All it means, really, is "main road." They probably have a route number.
So a mere principal road between two Massachusetts towns might be called
a "highway" by a visitor from outside New England, because it is a
bigger and more important road than the other ones near it, like
residential streets and narrow country lanes.
A "freeway," on the other hand, is more like what you are calling a
"highway." Always multiple lanes and only accesible by way of exits and
entrances. But Rt l in Saugus, and some other Boston roads, only
*resemble* freeways. They have multiple lanes and entrances and exits,
but they *also* have direct access from parking lots, driveways, etc,
and this makes them very difficult and dangerous. You'd probably call
that a highway, but I wouldn't call it a freeway. I might describe it as
a "divided road," which is one step down from a freeway, but it's not a
typical divided road, either, what with those off-ramps and on-ramps.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Former Californian, former Bostonian
Richard Fontana
> I could see how someone who lived most of his life somewhere in the
> four boroughs served by the MTA New York City Subway could be more
> resistant to the idea of a non-limited-access "highway" than someone
> from the postwar 'burbs, which are more likely to display the concept
> of the self-contained residential development with only a handful of
> outlet streets connecting it to the rest of the world, and which
> therefore make it easier for the local resident to conceptually
> separate a small neighborhood street from a collector artery from a
> long, high-speed road with relatively few intersections, such as the
> aforementioned east-of-Baltimore U.S. 40 or, say, the relatively
> isolated part of Route 1 north of Laurel Proper and south of the
> Greater Glen Burnie Metropolitan Area.
Dead right. However, nancy g.'s comments may suggest that something
else is going on here. If nancy g. is not from that subsection of the
Boston Metropolitan Area served by the "T" subway-type system, then it
*could* be that "highway" just somehow picked up a different meaning in
the coastal urban regions north of somewhere.
Richard Fontana
> Data point: Born and brought up in New England (starting out in the
> Greater Boston area, gradually moving north and west about 35 miles),
> and to me, any road that has exits and entrances is a "highway".
Now see that's like my usage. That's how I'm describing "limited
access", basically, though I don't know if that's the technical
definition. "Controlled access" I assume refers to limited access toll
roads, or is that wrong? I never had to use terms like "limited
access" (though I saw them on maps) because, like you (if I'm reading
you rightly), for me a highway referred *solely* to a road with exits
and entrances, or something very similar to exits and entrances --
something other than ordinary intersections.
> The
> "Expressway", to me, refers to one very specific road in Boston whose
> proper name is the Southeast Expressway. Nobody I know would use
> "expressway" as a generic term for any type of road.
This is also true of the New York usage. There are many named urban
limited-access "expressways", and these named "expressways" are, in
fact, the first things a Four Boroughs (maybe just Two or Three
Boroughs, check with Michael and any Bronx resident, not that they
have priority) speaker learns to think of as a "highway". But no one
really uses "expressway" as a generic term, any more than one would use
"Thruway" [sic] as a generic term. As I've noted, the closest
"expressway" and "parkway" come to being generic terms is that
"expressway" seems to strongly imply a highway serving a metropolitan
area, and "parkway" usually indicates (if it refers to a highway in the
sense I mean) a limited-access highway that doesn't allow trucks.
"Turnpike" is never used generically (except in historical senses),
though it tends to imply, when it refers to a limited-access highway,
a long-distance toll-road that sort of traverses a whole state.
Of course, other regional dialects may vary.
> I occasionally
> hear someone from an older generation refer to highways that charge a
> toll as "toll roads".
To me that's one of those road atlas terms, just like "limited access
highway" and so forth.
> If someone calls a road an "interstate", it's a
> sign that they're Not From Around Here.
I guess I think of something as being "an interstate" if:
(a) it's part of the Interstate Highway System, and
(b) it is a limited-access road, and
(c) it is one of the portions of Interstate highways that serves to
connect two distant places. I think this is related to how those
three-digit Interstate highways are often known (in the Northeast) by
other names, while the two-digit Interstate highways are generally
referred to by that number. That's right, isn't it? But I wouldn't
refer to any such "interstate" as "the interstate" the way some people
seem to. "I-95" or "95" is, upon reflection, "an interstate", but it's
not "the interstate".
> And I don't think anyone I
> know calls any roads "freeways".
Again, consistent with the New York Usage.
> nancy g.
> who prefers the byways
What do you call the non-limited-access major roads that connect towns?
I call these "roads", sometimes "back roads" when there's a speedier
route that would involve driving on a limited-access highway. Of
course, in sufficiently large towns, let alone cities, these roads lose
the roadlike character and seem like streets.
Pat Durkin
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u8ujaugcnh8akftfv...@4ax.com...
<about statistical uses of freeway: Boston Globe, L. A. Times>
> While fiddling with the archive, I happened upon a statement that
> contained something like "Hawaii is the U.S.' most racially homogeneous
> state". It took me awhile to realize that they meant "U.S.'" to be the
> possessive of "U.S.", following the debatable rule that the possessive of
> any word ending in "s" should be formed by adding only an apostrophe.
>
I agree that using the possessive with U.S. (an abbreviation) is awkward.
My comment here is about the use of homogeneous to describe the racial
admixture in Hawaii. Do you recall the site that yielded this comment? I
confess to a great deal of surprise at that characterization of the
population of Hawaii. Did the site cite statistics showing the distribution
of races there?
John Varela
> *In general* that's true enough for government work in my experience. I
> don't notice that Judge Lieblich has weighed in on this thread, so I
> should point out in fairness that in the Greater Laurel Area (The Fourth
> Largest Metropolitan Area in America) and especially in his end of it,
> there are quite a few local freeways (so named).
By "his end of it" I take you to mean Northern Virginia. I know of no
"freeways (so named)" in Northern Virginia. In common parlance the Capital
Beltway is called "the Beltway". I-66 is called "I-66". I-95 is "I-95".
The Dulles Access Road is the "Dulles Access Road" (but I see on the map
that it's also the "Hirst Brault Expressway"; that's a new one on me). The
George Washington Parkway is "the Parkway". Shirley Highway is "I-395" (I
don't know when that particular change happened).
If you can give a counter example, do so.
--
John Varela
Pat Durkin
"GrapeApe" <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
news:20020402164421...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> >There's one just at the end of our road, beyond the next house -- it
takes
> >a
> >dip to go under the railway line,
>
> So have you ever gone under there?
Glad you caught that. Makes me think of street signs warning us of the one
in the road.
John Varela
> But highways have always been like intercity roads, and they still are in
> places where they haven't all been made limited access.
Sure. I have occasion to drive from Northern Virginia to Durham, NC from
time to time. Since I hate I-95 going south to Richmond, I always go out
I-66 to Gainesville, thence via U.S. *Highway* 29 to Culpeper, thence via
U.S. *Highway* 15 to Oxford, NC, and finally via I-85 to Durham.
If U.S. 29 and 15 aren't highways, then what are they? Over the portions I
travel neither is limited access (except for a short stretch of 15 near
Farmington) and most of 15 is only two lanes.
The vast areas of the mountain west have many long stretches of two-lane
highways.
--
John Varela
John Varela
wrote:
> (a) it's part of the Interstate Highway System, and
> (b) it is a limited-access road, and
Aren't all Interstates limited access? Can anyone name an exception?
--
John Varela
John Varela
wrote:
> Why would anyone want to move from California to the harsh climate of the
> Northeastern US?
A friend of mine, a man with a PhDEE from Berkeley, moved from Santa Barbara
to Somers Point, NJ. When asked why, he said it was because he had to earn
a living. That seemed like a good enough reason.
--
John Varela
John Varela
wrote:
> "Hawaii is the most
> racially homogeneous state in the U.S."
That's hard to believe. I would have guessed it was someplace like Maine or
North Dakota.
--
John Varela
John Varela
> As a side note, I know whereof Coop speaks -- one can not get to Gatorland
> without driving on 17/92. Strangely enough, around there the highway is
> also called and labeled as the Orange Blossom Trail, or in native lingo, the
> OBT (oh bee tee). So, even something called a trail can be a highway, see?
Similarly, the National Park Service operates a two-lane limited access toll
road called "Skyline Drive". It connects to the "Blue Ridge Parkway".
--
John Varela
Bob Stahl
>Joe Manfre:
By coastal, do mean "Seaway"?
--
Bob Stahl
John Varela
wrote:
> Let me ask you this, Coop. Suppose you're driving on Highway 17/92
> through one of those Orlando suburbs with houses fronting said road.
> Could you say, in Orlando English, "I am at this moment driving on a
> highway"? Now suppose that Highway 17/92 is somehow decommissioned as
> a state highway; it's just like any other street in Orlando, in the
> sense that it no longer has a state highway number and none of whatever
> things go along with having a state highway number. But in all other
> respects it *looks* just like it used to when it was Highway 17/92.
> Suppose it's renamed "Cooper Road". Are you still "driving on a
> highway"? Suppose it's renamed from Cooper Road to "Cooper Highway".
> Same answer? Different?
To me the distinction is how long the road is and how urban the environs. A
principal through road between populated areas that extends for tens of
miles is a highway. Something shorter branching off of that is, if rural, a
road or, if lined with buildings, a street.
When the highway passes through a populated area it is still a highway to
those passing through, while to the residents it may be a street, avenue, or
what-have-you. U.S. 50 as it passes through D.C. is "New York Avenue",
"Constitution Avenue", and one or two other names, and in Arlington it is
"Arlington Boulevard", but back in the 1950s when it was the main road and I
drove it on my way between Boston and New Orleans I was still on the highway
as I passed through the area. In confirmation of that, there were and still
are highway signs to guide through traffic in and out of town.
--
John Varela
Bob Cunningham
said:
I probably misquoted them. After I noticed the "U.S.'", I lost track of
where I had found it, so I made up a sentence that was sorta like what
they said. My example statement wasn't meant to convey information, but
only to illustrate the way they expressed the possessive of "U.S.".
The thrust of the article I was quoting from was that there are a number
of different ethnic groups in Hawaii, and they have intermarried to a
remarkable degree.
I'm pretty sure they did use the word "homogeneous", though. I'll
probably try again to find that posting. I don't even remember what
newsgroup it was posted to or what year it was.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>I only bring this matter of "freeway" up because from time to time
>we get Rightpondians and Californians and such assuming that the term
>"freeway" is a general American sort of word, and it isn't. It is a
>regionalism, generally foreign to the East Coast U.S., and efforts to
>establish it as a general Americanism must be regarded as a form of
>Western cultural imperialism.
It's a regionalism in South Africa too. The Durban municipality built a
freeway, and the Johannesburg one built a motorway.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Richard Fontana
An article on the Bangor News website calls Maine the "least racially
diverse state in the nation".
Bob Cunningham
I don't remember sighting at the site a citation of statistics.
As I've mentioned in another posting, I'm going to try again to find the
posting. If I find it, I'll report back.
Richard Fontana
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 04:57:21 UTC, R J Valentine <r...@smart.net> wrote:
>
> > But highways have always been like intercity roads, and they still are in
> > places where they haven't all been made limited access.
>
> Sure. I have occasion to drive from Northern Virginia to Durham, NC from
> time to time. Since I hate I-95 going south to Richmond, I always go out
> I-66 to Gainesville, thence via U.S. *Highway* 29 to Culpeper, thence via
> U.S. *Highway* 15 to Oxford, NC, and finally via I-85 to Durham.
>
> If U.S. 29 and 15 aren't highways, then what are they? Over the portions I
> travel neither is limited access (except for a short stretch of 15 near
> Farmington) and most of 15 is only two lanes.
If they're not limited access, they're "roads" in my dialect. Up where
I am, those U.S. highways are sometimes highways (when they become
limited access) and sometimes are just roads.
Michael J Hardy
> I don't think anyone I know calls any roads "freeways".
Interesting. I'm beginning to suspect Richard is right when
he says "freeway" is not part of the colloquial language in this
(Boston) vicinity.
The definition I've always known is that a "freeway" is a highway
on which there are no "controlled intersections", i.e., places where
you need to stop if the light is red, or the like. -- Mike Hardy
Richard Fontana
Aren't there non-limited-access portions of some interstates? For
example, isn't 34th Street in Manhattan part of I-495? You see the
"495" sign there.
Don Aitken
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Skitt wrote:
>> >
>> > As a side note, I know whereof Coop speaks -- one can not get to Gatorland
>> > without driving on 17/92. Strangely enough, around there the highway is
>> > also called and labeled as the Orange Blossom Trail, or in native lingo, the
>> > OBT (oh bee tee). So, even something called a trail can be a highway, see?
>>
>> I called the towns north of Orlando, but somewhere in
>> Orlando 17/92 becomes OBT. In Kissimmee it has even a
>> different name. It never stops being Highway 17/92.
>>
>> In Jacksonville, "King's Road" and "Old King's Road" look
>> suspiciously like ordinary streets. I'm sure there are
>> similar situations even in New York. "Avenue of the
>> Americas", for example, looks suspiciously like a numbered
>> avenue.
>
>Well, one of Brooklyn (that is, Kings County)'s oldest thoroughfares is
>Kings Highway, and that is about as far from a highway as can be
>imagined; it's just a narrow, curved commercial street. It used to be
>a post road way back when, but it was never made part of Historic Route
>1 or any other federal "highway", to the best of my knowledge.
>
Of course the original meaning of "highway" is any right-of-way open
to all traffic. This is still the only sense of the word in BrE.
Limited-access roads are "motorways" if they are subject to a
particular set of rules, which, among other things, prohibit
horse-drawn vehicles, pedestrians, animals, and motor-cycles below
50 cc. There is no generally-accepted word for such roads which are
not motorways, although specialists call them "fully-improved trunk
roads".
--
Don Aitken
Bob Stahl
>Joe Manfre:
[strike my last post]
By coastal, do you mean "Seaway"?
Eric Sloane's illustrated book, "Our Vanishing Landscape", touches on the
evolution of canals, roads, fences, and buildings in 19th century America.
He quotes Dickens, remarking on travels in Ohio and New York in 1842:
"A great portion of the way was over what is called a corduroy road, which
is made by throwing trunks of trees into a marsh, and leaving them to settle
there. The very slightest of the jolts with which the ponderous carriage
fell from log to log, was enough, it seemed, to have dislocated all the
bones in the human body."
(more here...)
http://www.mastertexts.com/Dickens_Charles/American_Notes/Chapter00015.htm
Sloane notes that a lane, or public road, was usually defined as one rod
wide (16-1/2 feet). He writes on early New York State plank roads: "The word
'highway' came from old Europe, where there was always a private road for
the King, with an adjoining lower shelf road for commoners. The American
plank roads which so resembled that arrangement, with their elevated plank
sections and adjoining dirt 'turn-off' roads, were at once called Highways
and the name has stuck." His illustration of a typical plank road shows a
road grant (easement) with a width of one chain (66 feet, or four rods), an
8-foot-wide plank road with an adjacent 12-foot-wide dirt 'turn-off', and
5-foot-wide drainage ditches on either side.
The first registered plank highway was built in Canada in 1836, Sloane says.
--
Bob Stahl
Bob Cunningham
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> said:
>On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, John Varela wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 19:11:21 UTC, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote
[with no intent to convey information about the homogeneity of the
Hawaiian population, but with only the intent to discuss the formation
of the possessive of "U.S."]:
>> > "Hawaii is the most
>> > racially homogeneous state in the U.S."
>> That's hard to believe. I would have guessed it was someplace like Maine or
>> North Dakota.
>An article on the Bangor News website calls Maine the "least racially
>diverse state in the nation".
I'm happy that at least one person has commented on the point I was
making, which had to do with the awkwardness of expressing the possessive
of "U.S.". If I had known I was going to start a thread on homogeneity of
state populations, I would have been more careful what I said in my
example statement.
If I had it to do over, I might use the example statement "Purple is the
U.S.' scarcest cow color", but in AUE I suppose even that could start a
discussion having nothing to do with the possessive of "U.S.".
(Has anyone ever seen a purple cow? Is there anyone here who would not
rather see than be one?)
Richard Fontana
[...]
> Sloane notes that a lane, or public road, was usually defined as one
> rod wide (16-1/2 feet). He writes on early New York State plank
> roads: "The word 'highway' came from old Europe, where there was
> always a private road for the King, with an adjoining lower shelf
> road for commoners. The American plank roads which so resembled that
> arrangement, with their elevated plank sections and adjoining dirt
> 'turn-off' roads, were at once called Highways and the name has
> stuck." His illustration of a typical plank road shows a road grant
> (easement) with a width of one chain (66 feet, or four rods), an
> 8-foot-wide plank road with an adjacent 12-foot-wide dirt 'turn-off',
> and 5-foot-wide drainage ditches on either side.
>
> The first registered plank highway was built in Canada in 1836, Sloane says.
Interesting. The only thing I know from plank roads is that
Brooklyn's Coney Island Avenue, one of the world's greatest
thoroughfares, used to be the "Coney Island Plank Road". But then
Coney Island Avenue isn't a highway; it's a street.
John Varela
wrote:
> Aren't there non-limited-access portions of some interstates? For
> example, isn't 34th Street in Manhattan part of I-495? You see the
> "495" sign there.
Is it actually 495, or is it an indication of how to get to 495?
--
John Varela
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Eric Sloane's illustrated book, "Our Vanishing Landscape", touches on the
>evolution of canals, roads, fences, and buildings in 19th century America.
>
[snip]
>Sloane notes that a lane, or public road, was usually defined as one rod
>wide (16-1/2 feet). He writes on early New York State plank roads: "The word
>'highway' came from old Europe, where there was always a private road for
>the King, with an adjoining lower shelf road for commoners.
This is total nonsense. Folk etymology at its silliest.
--
Don Aitken
John Varela
wrote:
> The only thing I know from plank roads is that
> Brooklyn's Coney Island Avenue, one of the world's greatest
> thoroughfares, used to be the "Coney Island Plank Road".
Plank roads featured in one or two Civil War battles. The Miller Brewing
Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin is descended from The Plank Road Brewery,
which name they have revived for their up-market products.
http://www.tinsel.org/beer/miller.html
--
John Varela
rzed
"John Varela" <jav...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NKQS2gVdCOMx-p...@dialup-209.244.215.56.Dial1.Washington2
.Level3.net...
Generally, even-numbered prefixes indicate a spur that goes around a
populated area, while odd-numbered ones go into the thick of it. The
Greater Laurel Beltway is I-495, for instance.
So 495 *shouldn't* be found in Manhattan, one would think, unless it's
been depopulated since I was last there.
Gary Vellenzer
rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu says...
NJ Meadows. Speedy connections between Paterson and NYC were important
in the days of water power. Paterson, because of its waterfall, was a
major manufacturing center in the nineteenth century.
It's now a regular paved road, though.
Gary
Richard Fontana
I'm not sure. The signs I've seen, IIRC, do not say "To 495"; they
just say "495". However, that might be standard practice.
Skitt
"John Varela" <jav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Aren't there non-limited-access portions of some interstates?
> > For example, isn't 34th Street in Manhattan part of I-495?
> > You see the "495" sign there.
>
> Is it actually 495, or is it an indication of how to get to 495?
Don't know about that, but it seems that the unfinished parts of
Interstates, say, as the I-540 at the Arkansas/Missouri border, do not get
the Interstate label until they are finished. The one I just mentioned
turns into US-71 in Missouri.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)